Monday, January 01, 2007

Jan. 1 Bowl Wrap:So Much For Michigan's Worthiness

USC crushes Michigan in the Rose Bowl: See the post below for my take on the short-term "rep" boost for the Big Ten with Wisconsin's win over Arkansas, but it's all moot after Michigan got its ass handed to it by USC.

Michigan fans can argue that the team's BCS snub left it unmotivated, but in reality, they should have recognized that they needed a big win to justify griping over being snubbed by the title game. Again, with this drubbing, the point is moot: Not only is Michigan NOT one of the Top 2 teams in college football this season, they aren't even one of the Top 3 -- obviously, USC is worthy of being ranked higher than Michigan. So so SO obviously.

(PS: I really wish Kirk Herbstreit and Brent Musberger would stop disparaging the "bloggers," as if they/we are some kind of scourge on Michigan. It's just taking cheap shots -- not to mention wildly uninformed analysis to the point of making Kirk and Brent simply sound petty and spiteful. Maybe Kirk is just grumpy that this Michigan team he pimped for days after the BCS title-game selection controversy has, in turn, crapped the bed today.)

No no no Dan - you can't take the bloggers seriously! We might someday rise up and crush the massice media conglomerate at Disney/ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ABC Family/ESPNNEWS/ESPNU... (I'm forgetting something...)

And that game left me feeling very, very sick. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I also am looking forward to an OSU blowout. And for the very same reason - to prove that they were just too damned good this year.

And to shut up all the SEC apologists. 0-2 as a conference vs. the Big Ten so far...

That's right, Dan; you bloggers need to be kept down so the professionals such as Skip Bayless and Jay Mariotti can continue to tell me what to think.

I want to add one item that I think is worth nothing. Before the season, Gene Wojciechowski wrote a column on Lloyd Carr in which he quoted Bo Schembechler saying, in so many words, that if Michigan ever thought about firing Lloyd Carr, they'd have to go through him. I don't think Schembechler was joking. I also don't think Carr's job is in any realistic sort of danger.

Will all that said, I do think the death of Schembechler meant Carr lost his biggest fan within the University. While I don't think an 11-2 season is worse than a 7-5 one, it's the way the Wolverines looked in both of losses (in their 11 wins, Michigan trailed for about 22 minutes (IIRC); in their two losses, they never led) that leads me to believe that Carr's on the hot seat (though not nearly as hot as last year).

The bottom line is this: The University of Michigan has to make a decision, if not now, then soon. Do they want to be a second-tier power, or try to move back up to the highest level of college football? The answer, I think, will tell us whether Lloyd Carr will still have a job in a year or two.

I don't think it proved that the BCS worked. I think it proved that USC is the #2 team in the country and they don't get a chance to show it against OSU.

Oh please. USC had a chance to prove it simply by beating UCLA. They couldn't do that. If, after all is said and done USC is ranked #2, it's only because no team in the nation was actually deserving of #2.

That said, USC scares me in 2007. Good thing tOSU doesn't start the home-and-home until 2008.

As for Lloyd Carr: my prediction is that he's retiring after next season. TPTB won't force him out early as a result.

Michigan's worthiness had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they won this game. It was whether or not, at the time, they were perceived as the second-best team in the country. Michigan was percieved as the second-best team in the country but was left out of the national championship game, therefore they were screwed.

Personally, I think USC is the second best team in the country, and they just laid an egg vs UCLA and Oregon St.

It is no more ludicrous than your sudden claim that the BCS worked based on a game that isn't even the title game. So when OSU beats Florida 50-3 does that mean the BCS worked?

Yes. Ditto if Florida beats OSU 50-3. Right now, there are only two teams that have a legitimate claim to the national championship: either OSU undefeated or UF with 1 loss. (Sorry Wisconsin, Louisville and Boise State fans, but that's the truth.) Michigan could've had a claim if they had won (and tOSU had lost) because they'd have 1 loss like Florida. Now they don't.

Not a single one of those teams would've been in the discussion as one of the top two teams in the league before the playoffs started. None of them.

Yet it's the BCS, which is about to set up yet another national champion without (serious) argument, that is the one derided constantly? Sure, playoff systems are great because it gives teams outside of the top 2 a chance for the trophy ... but it does not crown the best team in the league. Just the one that got lucky/hot when the time was right.

I think the fact that USC is so young leads to losses like the UCLA game. They may be the # 2 team in the country, heck the way they played today they might have beaten Ohio St, but in no way did they deserve to play in the championship game based on their regular season results.

We could say that Boise deserves to be in the championship game right now (leading 21-10, just in case they lose this game), but they didn't deserve it at the time either.

for every quality blogger out there, there are thousands of crappy bloggers.USC lost to UCLA and Oregon St. Crapping the bed once happens.Twice is not a fluke.USC wasn't #2 at end of season. And #2 doesn't matter after the BCS seedings are done. So whoopee for USC.Considering who they lose to, the loser of OSU - FLA should still be #2 in the country.

The question now is where does Boise end up in the rankings??? Do they deserve the #2 spot if Ohio St beats Florida. It's not really that important in the grand scheme of things but I'm sure it would be nce for their program.

Myers basically says as Johnson finishes answering a question (the g/f is standing next to johnson)'Congratulations on the game and, oh, i know you wanted to propose to your girlfriend, so go ahead'as johnson has a stupefied look on his face.

Wow what a fucktard! You let the guy say he's gonna propose... not give it away! Geez he's suckin' some ass ... go back to ESPN Chris! We need his crappy 30 minute show again so we can watch the people he interviews beat each other up! Haha

How, again, are Ohio State (possibly 13-0) and Florida (possibly 13-1) more deserving than those four teams?

Well, USC went 11-2, not 12-1, so there's the answer for that one.

Louisville can not be addressed until we see if they beat Wake Forest tonight. But Louisville would be playing tOSU next Monday if they had beaten Rutgers. They knew exactly what they had to do, and they couldn't do it.

Wisconsin lost to Michigan. If they had won, they'd have a gripe. They knew exactly what they had to do, and they couldn't do it.

Boise State is tough, to be honest. The answer is simple, though: move up from the WAC or go independent and schedule tougher opponents. It's a harsh world out there.

Dan's rationale is retarded. Somehow Michigan crapping the bed against USC shows they are not worthy, and yet USC crapping the bed against UCLA is the opposite? Boise State showed they belong. And you cannot do a final ranking without the final bowl results. What if Florida or OSU craps the bed? Then that team should not be #2, I would put BSU or USC ahead of them. And what about Wisconsin? Where does this leave them?

Thanks for the corrections. Not enough sleep last night from watching the Fiesta Bowl.

My simple point: There is no guarantee in any given year that running the table, or losing one game, will get you the shot for the title.

How can you ever schedule tougher opponents when CFB teams set their schedules 3-5 years in advance? (I still don't know why it is so necessary to do this.)

Plus, how many BCS teams would be willing to travel to Boise (as part of a multi-year home & home contract) instead of scheduling a home game against D-IAA Directional School or BCS Perennial Conference Doormat?

This is the Gonzaga CBB argument all over again, except this time there is no motivation (read selection committee/RPI/playoff) to schedule these type of games.

My simple point: There is no guarantee in any given year that running the table, or losing one game, will get you the shot for the title.

Granted.

How can you ever schedule tougher opponents when CFB teams set their schedules 3-5 years in advance? (I still don't know why it is so necessary to do this.)

Well, it's like you say below: don't schedule the doormats. tOSU (to use an example) already has Miami and USC lined up over the next few years. Even if those teams have 'off' years, they're still likely to go 9-3. Plus, the polls are a lot about perception. Showing that you're making an effort to schedule big name opponents carries a lot of credence, even if the team that shows up isn't as good as anticipated.

Plus, how many BCS teams would be willing to travel to Boise (as part of a multi-year home & home contract) instead of scheduling a home game against D-IAA Directional School or BCS Perennial Conference Doormat?

This is the Gonzaga CBB argument all over again, except this time there is no motivation (read selection committee/RPI/playoff) to schedule these type of games.

I think the motivation is starting to show up. I think after Auburn goes undefeated but doesn't sniff the title game, teams are starting to realize that scheduling tougher opponents is a necessity. I can definitely see Boise State home-and-homes becoming more likely.

Of course, by then they'll be 4-8, but hey, it's about perception, right?

Connect With Me

Quickish

About This Blog

DanShanoff.com is a sports-blog spin-off of my long-time ESPN.com column, "The Daily Quickie." Anchored by an early-morning post of must-know topics, the blog is updated frequently throughout the day with new posts and user comments.